Photo Voter ID: What Do Liberals Know that We Don’t?
Published July 26, 2013
By Senator Thom Golsby, July 25, 2013.
The Democrat complaint list goes on and on against photo voter ID in North Carolina: voter suppression, new Jim Crow laws, onerous requirements for college students to cast ballots, etc.
Liberals and their mainstream press allies are at it again, but this is nothing new. They are spouting the exact same old rhetoric used in Georgia before the passage of its photo voter ID law in 2005. Opponents labeled the new law a Jim Crow-era tactic that would be used to suppress the African-American and Hispanic vote. Supporters of voter ID insisted that it was needed to ensure the integrity of the elections process by preventing fraud at the polls.
Georgia’s voter ID law was originally contested in the courts, but won approval and was implemented in 2007. It was first utilized in the 2008 statewide general elections and in no way suppressed the minority vote. In fact, just the opposite occurred — opponents of photo voter ID found themselves “eating crow” from the start of the law’s implementation.
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution conducted an extensive elections data review of voter participation in Georgia. It showed that voting by African-Americans rose 44 percent from 2006 (before photo voter ID) to 2010 (after photo voter ID). The increase was even greater for Hispanics — up 67 percent. Turnout among whites was only up 12 percent.
As expected, African-American voting spiked when Obama first ran for President in 2008. However, African-American turnout also increased for the following off-year election of 2010, and this increase was much greater than the previous off-year election of 2006.
Clearly, another factor was driving voter turnout. Could it possibly have been a belief in “election integrity”? Regardless of race, doesn’t everyone want to know that their vote counts and is not diluted by electoral fraud?
Another baseless claim made by liberals and the mainstream media is that North Carolinians should not be worried about protecting their elections from voter fraud because “there isn’t any.” In reality, how would anyone know the extent of election cheating? It is inaccurate and inherently reckless to claim that a problem doesn’t exist when — without photo ID — there is no means to measure fraudulent voting.
Lastly, the naysayers claim that the taxpayer will need to pick up the tab for over 300,000 citizens who do not have photo IDs and cannot afford to pay for them. Georgia’s experience again holds some potential clues as to the validity of this argument. At the time their law was passed, Peach State opponents claimed that over 600,000 free IDs would be required, costing taxpayers millions of dollars. They were just a little off the mark. Since photo voter ID was implemented in 2007, only 26,506 Georgians have obtained free photo IDs.
Opponents of photo voter ID are more than happy to bury their heads in the sand and pretend no problems could or do exist. While they have done so, more than 30 states have adopted voter ID laws. North Carolina is now one of the last states in the Southeast to consider doing so.
The question that everyone should ask is: “What’s wrong with identifying yourself at the polls?” We all do so at the bank, bar, airport and when using a credit card. Besides, when it comes to voting, we are talking about a fundamental constitutional right.
Why are Democrats making such a big deal about this issue when 72 percent of North Carolinians agree with producing a photo ID at the polling place? A majority of registered Democrats even agree with this reasonable requirement. Maybe the politicians know something that the rest of us don’t. Will we be surprised at the extent of election fraud we discover once individuals are required to identify themselves in order to vote?
July 26, 2013 at 10:06 am
Norm Kelly says:
I usually only get to discuss topics like this with my immediate circle. Thank you for being so exactly on the mark with this post.
My question to everyone I am able to talk with has been that of knowing how much fraud actually exists. The complaint is that since there is no voter fraud, implementing the onerous requirement for voters to carry a valid picture ID is meant to solve a problem that does not exist. But, like you write in your post, without a way to validate voter information how is anyone to know the extent of voter fraud. This claim is obviously and blatantly bogus.
While Gov Bev was in office, the legislature attempted to pass a voter id law. Of course, since it could negatively affect Democrat elections, Gov Bev vetoed the bill. Our illustrious representative David Price made a public statement about how bad the idea was, how racist the legislature was, and how great it was for Gov Bev to prevent this attempt at voter suppression. The same legislature, the same Gov Bev, and we get a requirement to show a valid picture ID at the drug store to pick up a prescription. Where was Gov Bev standing up against racism? Where was David Price claiming it would prevent the most needy among us from getting medication that could potentially save or extend life? Where were all the claims that "the disadvantaged" were being discriminated against by those wascilly Republicans who were hoping more of them would die? Somehow, showing a picture ID at the prescription counter was not a problem for those same people who couldn't possibly be expected to pay for a picture ID in order to vote.
I was, and continue to be, amazed that no one in the major press, not even the fair & balanced N&O, pointed out the hypocrisy of the Democrat party in Raleigh and especially David Price. David's obviously contradictory stance on picture IDs is so frustrating that I wonder how he manages to stay in office. In general, any Democrat who supported picture ID for prescriptions but opposed/opposes voter ID shows just how outrageous their stand FOR voter fraud really is.
My conclusion, in my always humble opinion, is that those who are opposed to voter ID requirements are pro-fraud. They refuse to look at the facts from other states where voter ID exists. But that's typical of too many politicians, and most Democrats: facts be damned!
July 28, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Michael Tuck says:
No one is "pro-fraud," any more than they are "pro-pedophilia" (another incendiary charge conservatives like to lob at liberals).
As many as a third of legitimate voters in some areas and groups lack the "proper" ID to be allowed to vote under this law. The lack of ID is often found among the elderly (talk to the dozens of nuns who tried to vote in Indiana from their nursing home in 2008, only to be turned down because the new law did not allow them to cast their legal votes), the poor, and minorities. Many of the same voter ID laws being passed requiring specific kinds of government-issued photo cards also restrict the methods people can get those IDs. In one state, voters were required to go to their DMV offices. But, that state's law also closed most of the state's DMV offices, and limited other offices' availability to one day a month. The DMV offices that were closed were all in poor and minority communities. Coincidence? Not hardly.
Voter fraud does indeed exist -- though a voter is more likely to be struck by lightning than commit the crime (I believe I misstated the statistic in an earlier post). And the kinds of voter fraud that do, on rare occasion, occur, would not be stopped by voter ID laws. In 2008, Minnesota went through a contested US Senate race. When the Republican candidate found himself on the losing end of a recount, he began flinging accusations of voter fraud. The state commissioned a bipartisan study of the votes cast. Of the over 3 million votes cast in that election, they found 7 instances of voter fraud. If I did my calculations correctly, that was 0.0002% of the vote. And some of the cases of voter fraud were in favor of the Republican candidate. None of those seven cases would have been prevented by forcing voters to present their papers at the voting booth.
Slinging inflammatory remarks does not prove your point. Perdue did not veto the voter ID law because "it could negatively affect Democrat [sic] election," she vetoed it because it would be costly and oppressive. Voting is probably the single most important right under a constitutional democracy, and it is specious to compare voting with paying bar tabs or picking up prescriptions.
The facts are in plain view, both the real facts and the fabrications that are in play among Fox News viewers and Rush Limbaugh fans. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. This debate would generate far more light and far less heat if we would agree on some of the fundamental facts underlying this issue.
July 28, 2013 at 8:16 pm
Norm Kelly says:
Either you watch more Fox News than I do, or the CNN/MSNBC that you watch is telling you stories again. I have not heard any conservative lob the pro-pedophelia charge at anyone, let alone a liberal. But then, Fox News is not available in my house.
As for your "facts" about other states and how they treat people without voter id, how does that affect NC? If our ID law does not close DMV offices, why is it relevant what some other state did?
Are you really trying to claim that it is so hard for so many people to get state-issued ids? And you can call a conservative claim "specious" if you wish. You also are entitled to your opinion. I find it interesting that liberal talking points are referred to as facts, while conservative (anti-fraud) talking points are specious.
And it absolutely is valid to compare voter id requirements with prescription pickup id requirements. Since I didn't bring up the bar tab issue, don't know where you got it from - just more junk to throw at the wall - I won't address it. Another irrelevant "specious" point. But preventing someone from getting their prescription because they don't have a valid picture id is a problem for those poor & minorities, and apparently nuns, who don't have a valid picture id. Imagine if your grandmother was one of those poor souls who couldn't get her heart medication. Now imagine that voter fraud, at whatever level it happens, changes the outcome of a close election. Would you be OK with that? I assume not. So why not try to stop it before it happens? Can you come up with a different method to prevent fraud before it happens?
Voting isn't just one of the most important rights. It also must be considered by the majority of voters to be accurate and free from fraud. Why would I bother spending time waiting in line, sometimes in bad weather, when it's quite possible that somebody else could be "cooking the books" so to speak. If voters have confidence in the process, perhaps, maybe more people will want to participate.
Or are liberals becoming the group of "NO", like liberals always bandy about. "No, not that way. I can't think of a better way, but I know that's not the way." "No, that's not really a problem that needs to be solved. We have no way of gathering the stats on this issue, but we know it's not a problem. So let's let it go for now, OK?" Yup, valid arguments all. Just me being specious.
With Love.
July 26, 2013 at 10:10 am
Vicky Hutter says:
Excellent points. The mainstream media and civil rights' groups are constantly making the arguments you have identified and they simply do not make sense. Bravo to the NC General Assembly for enacting this law requiring Voter ID to help insure fair and honest voting rights for American citizens.
July 26, 2013 at 2:21 pm
dj anderson says:
Thanks for no "Monday Moron" talk. And, thanks for a good blog.
Having found someone had voted for us, we are for ID. Extend verification to absentee ballot if possible, or restrict it.
As for Georgia, we will see how much NC is like Georgia. When the black vote goes down in 2014, I bet it will be blamed on not having Obama again on the ticket.
As for the title line question, it is more what the Democrats don't know that Republicans know. Democrats don't know what it is like being out of power, which Republicans have been living with all their lives.
Now, the question is do republicans know how to be in power and stay in power? Their redistricting says, "Yes." The Moral Monday people say NO.
July 27, 2013 at 12:44 am
Sarah Skinner says:
I don't think the black vote WILL go down in 2014. I think many will turn out to remove the people from office whom they, rightly or wrongly perceive, are trying to suppress their vote.
July 27, 2013 at 12:09 am
Michael Tuck says:
Goolsby hits all the approved hot-button spin items: voter fraud is rampant but not being detected, liberals are in a conspiracy to use voter fraud to dominate the elections, etc etc. This is absolute yammer from someone who ought to know better. A few bits in response:
-- Georgia's 2005 voter ID law was thrown out by the federal courts, who indeed found it onerous and repressive, and labeled it a return to Jim Crow. The version that was passed was still objectionable, but watered down significantly. Data shows that in 2008 and after, African-Americans voted in larger numbers, not because of the voter ID laws, but because of the Obama candidacy and effective "get out the vote" efforts by a number of citizen organizations, many of which (not all) supported Democratic candidates. Way to use statistics to mislead the reader, Goolsby.
-- "Election integrity" is a red herring. The chances of a particular election having voter fraud occur are less than the chances of a voter being struck by lightning going to or from the polls. Voter fraud is one of the least prosecuted crimes on the books. This is backed by solid data, and for Goolsby to retort to ugly mockery does not change the data. No one except hysterical conservatives think that any election is threatened by voter fraud. To claim that there "must be" lots of voter fraud going on because "no means" exist to document "fraudulent voting" is absolutely untrue. Two US Attorneys were fired in 2006 because their state Republicans didn't believe the data that showed elections in their states were not affected by voter fraud. Ask them what they think about the entire "white whale" of voter fraud ginned up by the far right. In recent years, the voter fraud that has been detected has been by Republicans such as James O'Keefe, who attempted to commit voter fraud to prove it could be done, and got caught. Or the husband of New Mexico Republican lawmaker Heather Wilson, who registered his dog to prove that it could be done, and got caught.
-- Voter ID costs states an excessive amount of money. Missouri is slated to spend $20 million, at the very least, to implement the law it just passed. North Carolina passed a law very similar to that one passed by Missouri -- not surprising, since both laws were originally written by corporate lawyers and lobbyists for ALEC. (The same holds for most of the 30-odd states that have passed voter ID laws. They are largely dominated by Republicans, who are using the ALEC "model legislation," sometimes to the point of barely changing the wording. In Kansas, the GOP-led state legislature had to hold up the passage of one law so staffers could delete references to ALEC in the bill.) NC has budgeted $1 million to pay for the ID provision. That figure is laughably inadequate.
-- The idea of "papers, please" at the voting booth is inherently undemocratic, no matter what specious rationales Goolsby advances. Voting is more important than paying a bar tab or a credit card, and as a government -- not a private -- function, it is inherently different. Many citizens have inherent difficulties in securing the proper ID Goolsby wants to require -- elderly people who lack proper birth identification, poor people who cannot afford the IDs, people who do not drive, and so forth. This applies to many, many more people than Goolsby wants to admit.
Ultimately, Goolsby and most of his fellow conservatives don't really care about voter fraud. All but a benighted few know it is a boogeyman issue that barely exists. What they really want to do is use voter ID laws to make it more difficult for poor, minority, college-attending, and elderly voters -- most of whom tend to vote Democratic -- to exercise the fundamental right that the Constitution grants them: the inalienable right to make their voices heard at the ballot box. In New Hampshire, a state Republican declared his sponsorship of a bill that would keep most college students from voting in the towns in which they live and attend school because, he said, those students "are kids voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience." At least he was honest about why he wanted to obstruct their ability to vote. If Goolsby wants to stop people from voting in North Carolina so he and his fellow Republicans can have an easier time winning elections, we would appreciate it if he was honest about the real reasons why.
July 29, 2013 at 11:15 am
Norm Kelly says:
"African-Americans voted in larger numbers, not because of the voter ID laws, but because of the Obama candidacy", etc.
So what you are actually saying here supports my argument better than it supports yours. In spite of what the federal gov't deemed, and you believe, to be "onerous", blacks got out in larger numbers. They found a way to be eligible to vote, even though wascally Republicans purposely set out to prevent them from being able to vote.
Imagine what would happen if we had white guys in military uniforms with billy-clubs standing outside a voting place located in a mostly black district. This might have been considered voter intimidation and attempting to prevent specific groups of minorities from voting. Perhaps then you would have an argument about trying to suppress the black vote. But the example you point out simply shows that despite "our" best efforts, and your worst arguments, the law was not quite as onerous as you wanted it to be.
And we can expect the same thing to happen in NC. People have plenty of time to make arrangements to get picture IDs or work out why they have an issue. Just like your gramma needing to get her heart medication picked up at the drug store. You and/or a family member will make sure gramma gets things taken care of so she won't die.
Voting is an extremely important right that must be taken seriously. If not with voter id, then what do you suggest that doesn't get labeled onerous? And what can possibly be done about all those minorities that kindly (white) Democrats need to take care of? And it sure would be interesting to get some feedback from some black people on how they feel knowing that Democrats in general think they need to be taken care of. I know that I raised my children to someday be adults, capable of taking care of themselves and being responsible for their lives; no longer dependent on me.
Continued love.
July 27, 2013 at 12:37 am
Sarah Skinner says:
I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. As long as a photo ID is provided to the elderly & low income people, and a way is provided for them to get to a motor vehicle office to get said IDs, I have no problem with this. Many people who don't drive don't have a state ID and some may not have birth certificates & what ever else it takes to get one. As long as every effort is made to see that EVERY North Carolinian who wants to vote, is allowed to vote, I have no problem with the new laws.
However, I must point out, that there is very little evidence of voter fraud. The big problem is getting people interested in voting, (apathy) but I don't think that will be a problem in 2014.
July 28, 2013 at 11:57 am
Norm Kelly says:
Sarah: "there is very little evidence of voter fraud". Since there is almost no way to prove who is voting without allowing for ID, then there's no way, none, to determine if there is voter fraud. Add to this that since there's no id required, there's almost no way to file any charges requiring an investigation into any type of fraud. and if someone were to vote as me, when i show up to vote, i'd be required to cast a provisional ballot. is there then a way to go back to find the ballot that should not have been counted, have that ballot removed from the legitimate count and have my provisional ballot count? or is it simply that my provisional ballot also counts? would this possibly be the right way for it to be handled? would elections officials make any sort of public records statement announcing how many provisional ballots needed to be filed because someone had already voted for that individual? i know you say you support this new law, but your words are the same words being used by opponents to claim that this law is unneeded.
however, at the same time, don't forget that gov bev vetoed a voter id requirement while at the same time signing a prescription pickup id requirement. it's ok to prevent poor, elderly, disadvantaged, non-drivers from getting potentially life-saving prescriptions, but it's not ok to require that same group of people to show id in order to vote.
July 29, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Ansede says:
Please be informed. Voter fraud is very real. Project Veritas operates on a shoestring budget and very easily exposed problems with voter registration and even complicit democrat operations.
http://www.projectveritas.com/category/library/
July 29, 2013 at 7:49 pm
dj anderson says:
In my lifetime, I only know personally of one person, a relative, repeatedly selling his vote (every election for many years), two cases of voting in another's name, one person who admitted marring ballots when counting them years ago, and one person claiming to vote more than once. Other than that, I don't know how I would know of vote buying/selling or fraud.
I don't know how someone would be caught if at all clever, tho, if they registered and were not qualified, or sold their signed absentee ballot, or voted more than once in different places.
Has vote fraud taken place. Yes, look at Chicago where it was brazen. Could it happen in NC? Yes. Has it, and is it happening, Yes. How much? No way to know. Even when caught voting in two places, I've not heard of someone being prosecuted.
Bottom line, it would be so easy to cheat on voting that people do suspect it and thus have a loss in confidence in the ballot. That's a serious doubt to have in a democracy.
Having been forced to vote provisionally when two others voted in place of my spouse and I, I'm all for voter ID and want it extended to the absentee ballot, and want absentee ballots restricted tightly.
